Rebecca represented the mother who successfully resisted the father’s application under the court’s inherent jurisdiction for summary return of their 4 children to Pakistan.
The court decided that the children were to remain in England. The judge emphasised that a move to Pakistan would be ‘significantly destabilising’ for the children.
Background to the proceedings
The parents separated in 2019 after a long marriage, periods of residence in both England and Pakistan, and allegations of domestic abuse by the mother.
Following the separation, the father sought to secure the children’s return to Pakistan, while the mother opposed the application based on the children’s welfare and their clearly expressed wishes to remain in England.
Summary return refused as welfare test not met
The court applied the principles in Re NY (A Child) [2019] UKSC 49 and Re A (Jurisdiction: Return of Child) [2013] UKSC 60, reaffirming that the child’s welfare is the court’s paramount consideration, even in the context of summary return.
Rebecca submitted that the children’s best interests could not be served by uprooting them from their settled lives in England and returning them to a country associated with instability and distress.
In reaching its decision, the court referred to Re J (A Child) (Custody Rights: Jurisdiction) [2006] 1 AC 80 reaffirming that a summary return is not automatic and the court must make a welfare-based choice.
Conclusion
The court gave significant weight to the children’s wishes and feelings and accepted that they had had negative experiences in Pakistan.
There was also credible evidence of domestic abuse found against the father towards the mother, which the children had witnessed.
Read the judgment in full in H v N (Inherent Jurisdiction Refusal of Return Order) [2020] EWHC 1863 (Fam)(16 July 2020)